Stinger wrote:Did anyone else here ever deal with a wingnut so dumb that they claimed Obama used hypnotic methods in his speech?
oh shit! I just put - Obama used hypnotic methods in his speech - into the google
these idiots - how do people get so stupid?
I think they work at it. First, you just start out being willfully ignorant and move to extreme gullibility. Then you just go around the bend and off the deep end.
It helps when there's a slight bit of truth to that, as there is with any good orator - or at least a good speech writer.
As Roger Ebert wrote in his review of The Matrix Reloaded:
Commander Lock: "Not everyone believes what you believe." Morpheus: "My beliefs do not require that they do." Characters are always talking like this in "The Matrix Reloaded," which plays like a collaboration involving a geek, a comic book and the smartest kid in Philosophy 101.
Morpheus in particular unreels extended speeches that remind me of Laurence Olivier's remarks when he won his honorary Oscar--the speech that had Jon Voight going "God!" on TV, but in print turned out to be quasi-Shakespearean doublespeak. The speeches provide not meaning, but the effect of meaning: It sure sounds like those guys are saying some profound things.
That will not prevent fanboys from analyzing the philosophy of "The Matrix Reloaded" in endless Web postings. Part of the fun is becoming an expert in the deep meaning of shallow pop mythology...
For a good example of this in Washington instead of Hollywood, may I refer you to Bush I's "Thousand Points of Light" speech.
Democrats take a strong pro-NRA stance. Declare that gun ownership is an important part of American citizenship, an important defence against the tyranny of the government and the establishment of a ruling class.
Then they begin a campaign to encourage and assist gun ownership by blacks, hispanics, and any minority that has ever feared the tyranny of a ruling class.
The next Republican administration then takes away everyone's guns. They use the method I outline above. The NRA, now making a fortune providing that training, backs them all the way.
And so the pro-gun-control crowd gets their gun control. The Republicans remain the party of "responsible" gun ownership, with a monopoly on deciding who is "responsible". The NRA makes a fortune. Everyone (that counts) is happy.
What could be more terrifying to Republicans than having the groups they've shunned and tried to disenfranchise to be well-armed?
And that in turn is why the NRA, like clockwork, declares that every new Democratic presidential candidate will take everyone's guns away. Even when, like Obama, their record shows otherwise. It explains why the NRA is so one-sidedly pro-Republican and rabidly, wingnuttily, anti-Democrat:
For all their encouraging people to have guns, they're effectively an extention of the Republican Party. A party that that has shunned and tried to disenfranchise blacks, hispanics and other minorities. Which keeps away all the people that they don't want to encourage to have guns.
O Really wrote:C'mon, guys - stay on track here. It's a serious question. Is there a realistic, practical, and viable path whereby "Obama" could take away our guns?
No. President Obama has proposed nothing of the sort but the scare from the r'wingers sure pumps up gun sales and ammunition sales.
Good goin' NRA!
The NRA has, mostly, irrationally scared Americans (there are a few exceptions, I'll admit) as their adherents.
Boo!
Go out and get a gun! I've got a flame thrower! You know you'll never be safe unless you arm up ...
I want one of those big rifles that are so long and heavy that it takes another person just to shoulder the barrel while the shooter takes aim. The only reason I haven't gotten one is I fear that when I need to use it to defend myself, I will be alone and will not be able to aim and fire.
Not that anybody has brought it up, but everyone does know that the "United Nations Arms Trade Treaty" would have no - zero - nada - zilch bearing on US Second Amendment rights. References are abundant.
In a speech before the National Rifle Association, President Donald Trump declared today that the United States would be "revoking the effect" of the U.S. signature of the global Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), and taking the treaty back from the Senate. The treaty which entered into force in December 2014, is the first global treaty to regulate the conventional arms trade. The Obama administration signed the treaty in 2014, and the treaty is before the Senate for consideration for ratification.
Key security experts and former officials sharply criticized the move as misguided, counterproductive, and dangerous.
The ATT establishes common international standards that must be met before states authorize transfers of conventional weapons or export ammunition and weapons parts and components. It aims to reduce the illicit arms trade, reduce human suffering caused by illegal and irresponsible arms transfers, improve regional security and stability, and promote accountability and transparency by state-parties concerning transfers of conventional arms....
Go out and get a gun! I've got a flame thrower! You know you'll never be safe unless you arm up ... 
